Basketball Coach

Lately I've thought a bit about my favorite sport, and considered what my philosophy and strategy would be if I happened to become a high school basketball coach. Not that there's even the most remote possibility that would ever happen - in fact, I don't believe I have the right personality to be successful in the job.

Even so, it's sort of fun to ruminate on what I might do to build a program. The local high school presents an interesting challenge. There hasn't been a winning basketball program there in decades. In my opinion not because of a lack of talent, but a lack of the kind of program that identifies and develops the players that can result in a competitive team.

The program has to start with development. One of the first things I'd do as the new coach is go meet the coaches from the feeder schools. I'd talk with them about a vision for the program that starts in the 5th grade, even though at least half of the best prospects will choose the other local high school.

Currently the coaches in the early grades are free to build their own teams without regard for how their choices impact the eventual high school rosters. Good basketball teams need height, speed, and athleticism. Slow little guys who happened to develop basketball skills, did so either from a natural talent and love of the game or because gung-ho parents got them to camps and clinics and even private coaching.

But those little slow guys aren't the ones who will make your team successful when they get to the 11th and 12th grades.

The tall kids are gangly and uncoordinated. When the coaches have tryouts in the 5th or 6th or 7th grade, those tall kids who can't dribble, can't shoot, and trip over their big feet barely get a look. What the leader of a successful basketball program needs to recognize is that boys develop at very different rates. That gangly tall kid who doesn't get a second look in the 7th grade has the potential to blossom into a Division I college prospect by the time he's a Senior. That super fast kid who can't dribble or shoot very well has the potential to become the best point guard in the conference by the time he's a Junior.

So I'd plead with the coaches in the lower grades to do the following:

• Take at least 3 or 4 of the tall, uncoordinated kids on your 15-member roster.
  
• Take one or two of the super fast kids who can't dribble or shoot.
• Then go ahead and take the best 10 of the rest.
• But encourage those who didn't make the roster not to give up. Create and support an intramural program, encourage kids to play in the PAL or FFY leagues. Get Senior players from the High School to coach those kids and keep the coaches informed on which kids are beginning to show promise.
• Get an assistant coach on those lower grade teams that works specifically with the big men, teaching them the fundamentals. Give the big men a taste entering games whenever possible to get some experience and motivation.
• Emphasize summer camps to bring out the local kids. The primary goal of the summer camps should be finding and developing the local talent, not making extra money for yourself.
  
• Stay engaged, and get to know every kid playing basketball in the community, whether on the school teams or the other programs.

As far as the first year at the high school, I'd start with the call-out meeting within the first couple weeks after school starts in August or September. I'd roam the halls looking for the tall kids. I'd talk to the football, baseball, and track coaches about the most athletic kids in those programs. I'd invite every one of them to the basketball tryout.

At the call-out meeting I'd make it clear that the roster is wide open. We will take the best 12 players on the varsity roster. We'll take up to 15 of the best players on the junior varsity roster, and up to 15 of the best freshmen for the freshman roster. Nobody who played last year is guaranteed a spot.

After picking the rosters for the 3 high school squads, I'd help organize an intramural league and encourage those who didn't make it to participate. I'd keep an eye on the kids in that league to look for young up-and-coming prospects.

My emphasis for building a competitive team would be on practice. I would not be a great game coach, and am not a great motivator. But I can be methodical and intelligent about focusing on the keys to success:

• Fitness: Everybody on the team will find games to be physically like a vacation compared to practice. No rubber legs in the fourth quarter will ever be blamed for a loss.
• Fundamentals: Every team member will go through very structured drills every day to develop their fundamentals. Dribbling, footwork, shooting, passing, rebounding, discipline. No loss will ever be blamed on a lack of discipline or poor fundamentals.
• Standards: Strict rules will be established and enforced uniformly on standards of appearance, sportsmanship, language, and conduct. This will be a class program.

I would assign assistant coaches to primary duties: One in charge of post player development, another in charge of guards. Post players will become outstanding defenders, experts at blocking out and controlling rebounds and near-perfect shooting inside 6 feet. Guards and small forwards must be quick, have great hands, and great passers. Only the sharpshooters will be allowed to take open 3-pointers. Everybody will shoot 200 free throws every day.

Practice will be sort of like learning to play the piano. Every fundamental will start with the simple and build up to more and more complex skills. For example, players will learn to shoot by starting under the basket and gradually moving out. When a player can dribble with the left hand, they'll be challenged to learn behind-the-back and between-the-legs. The same approach to learning the offense - start with the simple placement and options, and gradually introduce more and more wrinkles.

I'd use mostly a man-to-man defense, relying on the players' speed and conditioning. Zone defenses will be used either to confuse the opponent or when matchups make it a more effective strategy.

I'd utilize a motion offense with lots of screens, constant player cutting, and an emphasis on playing fast and finding the highest percentage open shot. I'd have the basic motion offense with multiple options against man-to-man, and an inside-out offense with lots of options against zone. I'd look for big and dominant big men in the middle with quick, sharpshooting guards and small forwards that will force opponents to pick their poison; let the big man score under the basket or let the sharpshooters pop from outside - you can stop one but not the other.

I'd implement a rigorous offseason training program, designed for speed, agility, and max verticals. Players who show up for tryouts out of shape risk their spot on the roster, regardless of natural talent. I wouldn't necessarily run a lot of fullcourt press, unless I felt it gave us a definitive advantage against a slower or lesser conditioned team.

I'd foster team unity with time spent outside of practice, but be careful not to overdo it so players still have quality family time at home. Every player will know exactly where they stand with the coaches and their role on the team, and any attitude problems with their role won't be tolerated. On the other hand, every bench player will understand that they can earn their way onto the court during games through exhibiting outstanding effort in practice.

A special reward for one Junior Varsity player allowed to dress with the Varsity will be based on practice effort. One JV player will dress for each regular season varsity game, chosen the day before each game and based solely on the coaches' choice of which player exhibited the best attitude and gave the best effort for the given week of practice.

The day after each game (typically Saturday morning) will be a light workout and film session. Reviewing game film will identify the most critical problems in that game, and the specific fundamental skills will become the primary emphasis for the next week of practice.

The basic philosophies of cultivating talent and recognizing that boys develop physically at different rates will ensure the best possible roster each season. A strong conditioning program will ensure that physical stamina is never a reason for losing a game. Players will respect themselves, their coaches, and each other, and will be models for the rest of the school.

I'd try to find assistant coaches who are good at the things I'm not good at. Starting with great motivators. But I also need assistants who know how to teach, since they'll be tasked with player skill development.

I think it's a pretty good strategy. If the local high school gets a coach who lasts more than 2 years, maybe they'll land one that would use something similar. Maybe someday I could catch on as an assistant somewhere, maybe when I don't have to work as much.

The Healthcare Post

The President asked for ideas that might help solve the healthcare problem. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, so I know any ideas I would present would be the last ever to be considered by someone of his leftist and power-mad bent.

All the same, I have a lot of insight on the topic. My business is closely tied to consulting with companies on their employee benefit programs, so I know a lot about how most people get health insurance. I am a small independent businessman, so I know a lot about the difficulties involved in obtaining healthcare for anything close to a reasonable cost.

So, based on my own life and business experience, here's how I think the healthcare problem might be solved.

1. Break health insurance away from employer plans and transfer it to each individual or family. I think employers in general would be happy to get the monkey off their back, allowing their employees to simply purchase their own health plans on the open market. If employers want to subsidize health insurance and/or help collect premiums through payroll deductions, fine. But make health insurance work for everyone the same way as auto or life or homeowner's insurance. Everybody just goes out and buys their own. Employers would then naturally increase employee salaries by the amount they're saving by getting employees off their insurance rolls.
2. Let insurance companies compete for the business. They can bundle the health insurance with auto, home, and life. They can sell products like healthcare savings accounts or combine healthcare and life insurance into new blended plans. What they can't do is turn down anyone. The only rule for purchasing health insurance is that someone can be denied a new policy with another company if they're currently in treatment for a major disease that's covered under their current policy.
3. Health insurance for the majority of people would likely be focused on a Major Medical plan. In other words, routine exams, treatment for common conditions, and routine prescription drugs would be paid out-of-pocket unless the individual chooses a plan that covers those expenses. Full coverage of such expenses would be available, probably with choices to blend medical savings accounts and insurance.
4. Insurance filing by medical providers will use a standardized electronic form. The insurance industry will be asked to form a standards board to define the electronic standard, which is provided by any of a wide choice of commercially-available software packages used by the providers.
5. For low-income individuals and families, a revamped MedicAid program administered by the states can be accessed. Application can be made to the program for assistance with medical bills and insurance premiums. A low-interest loan program will also be available for anyone faced with a budget-busting medical bill, that can be paid off when the borrower is more financially able.
6. Tort Reform, specifically MalPractice Reform, would generally work as follows: Medical Review Boards would be formed in each state, charged with a review of the facts surrounding a possible malpractice case. If the board, made up of an impartial group of professionals and non-professionals, finds the case has merit, it can be referred to civil litigation, or the parties involved can utilize mediation with the review board before moving into court.
7. All medical costs, including fee-for-service, prescription drugs, and insurance premiums, are fully tax deductible for all individuals and families. The 10% threshold will be eliminated. Medical Savings Accounts can be funded with pre-tax earnings, and are not taxed when used for medical expenses. Tax on earnings from medical savings investment accounts is only assessed on money taken out of the accounts for non-medical use.
8. The government has a very limited role in this proposal. They will make sure insurance companies agree on an electronic standard, enforce rules around universal eligibility, administer the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the Medicaid Loan program, and provide regulatory oversight to make sure insurers treat their clients fairly.

I think this framework will result in lower costs, better accessibility, and a healthier population. Rather than allowing insurers to punish clients for bad health habits, they would be permitted to offer rebates or prizes to their clients for things like losing weight, stopping smoking and drinking, lowering blood pressure, controlling diabetes, etc.

If the onerous burdens on providers are reduced, specifically malpractice lawsuit threats, 20 different insurance filing forms, having to constantly negotiate rates with every insurance provider, having to treat one-third of patients without collecting any fees, etc., the cost of treatments will go down.

If an office visit costs $30 to $40 instead of $60 to $80, most people will be able to pay out of pocket. If diagnostic testing costs less than $100 instead of hundreds or even thousands of dollars, again more people will be able to pay.

Providers have much less paperwork and get to collect most of their fees immediately, while patients know what things cost, can afford them, and will ask better questions and be able to work with their physicians to avoid unnecessary and defensive diagnostic testing.

Finally, everyone will have at least a Major Medical plan, that pays for all hospitalization, trauma treatments, cancer treatments, rehabilitation, and any costs related to a critical disease or injury. Spreading the risk across the entire population lowers the cost for everyone, and protects the providers from today's high percentage of uninsured who pay little or no part of the cost.

I'm absolutely against the idea that the government needs to take over, building a bureaucracy to decide what treatments people can and cannot have, adding a layer of cost without addressing root causes of already out-of-control costs, and trying to build punitive taxes on the "rich" to pay for free healthcare for everybody else.

The Terrorism Post

The whole topic of terrorism, national security, 9/11, Gitmo, interrogations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, etc., is one that hasn't really been a major theme for me in this blog. But the dueling speeches yesterday offered such a clear demonstration of the near opposite approaches from the two administrations that it seemed to present a good opportunity for me to add my two cents.

Cheney and Obama were about as different from each other in their passionate rhetoric on this topic as could be imagined. Cheney is a no-nonsense, unapologetic believer, and many suggest architect, of President Bush's strategies in the War on Terror. Obama is fond of vague rhetorical flourishes, always seeking the oohs and aahs from his adoring fans.

Cheney was the same guy that drove the left crazy with his unflinching commitment to an offensive strategy to root out terrorists where they live so they can never again repeat devastation like 9/11. He refuses to apologize for that strategy, denying that "enhanced interrogation techniques" even approximate torture, and pointing out that those techniques were used only rarely and on a small number of high-ranking al-Quaeda members to obtain information that helped stop planned terrorist attacks, saving thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.

Obama is dismayed by the aggressive approach so vigorously defended by Cheney. Aside from asserting that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11, he has outlawed all use of the phrase, "war on terror". He claims that aggressive pursuit of terrorists only creates more terrorists, "enhanced interrogation techniques" is indeed torture and illegal, and those interrogations, along with the very existince of Gitmo, make our country less safe.

The big difference between the two, from my perspective, is that one is open, honest, and very specific about what was done and how it succeeded in averting all terrorist attacks that were planned after 9/11. The other uses vague rhetoric about American values and unsupported claims that his predecessor's tactics made us less safe.

Either Cheney's right about the interrogations helping avert more terrorist attacks or he's not. Since Obama offers no evidence to the contrary, we must accept Cheney's very specific case.

Enhanced interrogation techniques are designed to instill fear, discomfort, and humiliation on those captured terrorists we know have information that can be used to save lives. I don't think fear, discomfort, and humiliation are torture. I think attempting to criminalize everyone involved over a disagreement over interrogation methods is dangerous banana republic politics.

But mainly, it is easy for me to break the interrogation down into a simple analogy. One I wish someone would pose to President Obama to get his response. Mr. President, suppose your lovely daughters were kidnapped by a ring of ruthless rapists and murderers, and one of the leaders of that ring were captured. If you were allowed a half hour alone in an interrogation room with him, what would you be willing to do to make him disclose all the information he has about the location and condition of your daughters?

I know what my answer to that question will always be. And I think those "enhanced interrogation techniques" described in the memos stupidly made public by the President would be a day at the beach compared to what I'd be willing to do to save my kids.

Cheney is right about his characterization of Obama on this issue. Obama cares more about his own political power and aggrandizement than the security of his country.

The only other explanations are too frightening to contemplace. Because if it's not just about him, then he's either incompetent and stupid, or he's an agent of our enemies.

I don't need the powers of Nostradamus to see what's coming. We will be struck again, and soon. Israel will be attacked by Iran soon, possibly with a nuclear bomb. Our country will be broken and bankrupt, watching hopelessly as the world explodes and our President continues to appease and hope he can stop the carnage by force of his personality.

Had Enough Yet?

Sometimes I've just got to vent.

How has it happened, that seemingly intelligent people refuse to acknowledge the irreparable harm being done to them and their way of life because they are hypnotized by the messianic President?

He goes to Notre Dame, which defied its own Roman Catholic benefactors to honor him and gasp at his awesomeness while he condescended and chided those who are appalled at his callous disregard for human life. Implicit in his speech was the message that he was the reasonable one on issues of life, while they (and I) are the shrill and ignorant radicals.

He has taken control of banking and automobile manufacturing, and can't wait to do the same with healthcare. He's declared war on the greedy, selfish rich capitalists but is best bud of greedy, selfish rich socialist elites.

He's singlehandedly dictating what cars we will be allowed to drive, in effect making only the ugly motorized rollerskates like the stupid "Smart Car" the sole and costly vehicle available.

He has stolen profitable auto dealerships in order to give them to other dealers he decided to spare. That happens in communist countries, not in America.

He has red-flagged conservatives for surveillance by Homeland Security as potential domestic terrorists. Offices are reportedly being opened and staffed right now by Obama's brownshirts who will be ready to move in on folks who are military vets, NRA members, pro-life advocates, even Ron Paul supporters. Yes, conservatives. How soon before people we know begin to disappear? Will they be checked into asylums, re-education camps, prison? Or will they simply disappear.

He has allocated billions for his personal army of "community organizers", aka ACORN. Any guesses how they plan to use that money?

He has co-opted the press. Unfettered corruption, from his own illegal relationship with ACORN, to sweetheart deals for friends and relatives of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jack Murtha, and many others, to tax evaders like Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, and about two-thirds of his cabinet nominees go unremarked and uninvestigated by the slavishly loyal third estate.

He will impose draconian taxes on energy that will make $4 gas seem cheap, freeze average families to death in their homes next February for lack of means to pay their heating bill, and cause commerce to grind to a stop as companies can no longer afford to make and ship products due to skyrocketing energy costs.

Please, somebody tell me you're not some sort of zombie, drugged out on this Obama worship happy gas to which only I seem immune.

Book Review

I'm a pretty voracious reader, especially when I'm traveling. Getting on an airplane without a book puts me into a state just short of panic. With a book, long plane rides are almost bearable.

I'm normally not in the habit of reviewing books here, but this week's tome seemed to inspire this short review.

I picked up a book by Lee Child, titled Nothing to Lose. I've read a couple of other Jack Reacher books by this author, and rather enjoyed them.

This one was disappointing.

Lee's alter ego protagonist, the strange loner Jack Reacher, is in this story the embodiment of the author's angst and seething rage. Over the war in Iraq, George W. Bush, environmentalism, and especially born-again Christians.

The author apparently couldn't help himself from creating this sort of leftwing political rant in the form of a novel. Too bad, because otherwise I find Lee to be an engaging storyteller.

In this book, the immediate villain is a sort of crazy born-again businessman who doubles as a sort of Christian svengali. He manages to create in this single villain every evil fantasy of the modern American Left.

The villain, you see, is into apocalyptic prophecy. Plus he happens to be an accomplished businessman who knows a lot about chemistry and metals recycling. So he basically recruits an insulated town full of sycophantic followers to help him hurry Armageddon along a bit.

It's fascinating to see how Child's alter ego has his own selective brand of morality. His definition of morality is severely anti-materialist, anti-Christian, and seriously environmentalist. Jack Reacher isn't much into more traditional moral codes, actually disdaining them. Then there's the terrorism angle; in Lee's world there aren't really any Muslim terrorists, he's more worried about his fantasies about Christian terrorists who try to stage mass murder and pin it on Muslims.

My hope is that if I pick up another book by Child, he will have expended his pent-up energy on Nothing to Lose and reverts back to the more entertaining and less self-serving stories I know he can produce.

It's the Boomers' Fault

So said Gov. Mitch Daniels at the Butler commencement this weekend.

It was surprising and perhaps a bit shocking to hear Mitch give a very unconventional commencement speech. The generally expected stuff about achievement and making the world a better place were tossed aside by the gov in favor of a harsh, but fundamentally true indictment of the selfishness and irresponsibility of the boomer generation.

His message to the graduates: Don't follow in your parents' footsteps, but be responsible, care for somebody other than yourself, keep your family together and take responsibility for raising your children, and rediscover basic morality. It's the only possible way the next generation can clean up the mess created by their hippie parents.

It was interesting to note that the students and the other honoree speaking at the event made a point of praising the new President. Mitch instead offered a veiled but true criticism; our president's primary accomplishment before taking office was the publication of two books. Both about him.

My guess is that half the crowd were offended, and the other half able to acknowledge the truth of his words. I am a bit conflicted between the acknowledgement and the idea that perhaps his message could have been a bit more positive and uplifting in the spirit of the occasion.

There's a lot that could be cited as examples of the decline in morality initiated by my generation. What's interesting to me is the polar opposite attitudes about this topic held by the two halves of the population.

One side defines morality in a favorite buzzword, "tolerance". Tolerance means no behavior may be condemned, and people should be free to live their lives as they choose. Even if it's destructive to themselves or others. The only exceptions to this catechism are the "intolerant" and the greedy. If someone holds a faith that teaches a set of moral standards, that person is guilty of greater sin than any murderer, thief or rapist. If someone is wealthy, and not an athlete, musician, actor, or member of the orthodoxy, that person is guilty of greed.

The other side defines morality according to the ancient Judeo-Christian traditions. They are accused of their opposites of ignoring tolerance and greed, and are themselves automatically held up in contempt for holding beliefs that are somehow repressive of the tolerants.

Morality and responsibility were the cornerstone of the success and prosperity of this greatest country in history. I'd agree with Mitch's point that the blessings of this society are seriously endangered, unless this new generation awakens to the truth.

Perhaps experiencing a repeat of my generation's grandparents' Great Depression and parents' Great World War is the only hope for a retreat from our excesses and a return to the foundational source of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

A terrible cost will be paid in any event. Unfortunately it won't be paid by the guilty members of the generation who ran up that debt, but the generation to which we've bequeathed it.

When They Call Truth Lies and Lies Truth

Too many have fallen for the trick.

The serpent in Eden convinced Eve to break God's only rule through the cunning use of a small truth to divert her from the whole truth and ignore the consequences.

Such is the situation today. Millions of Americans have fallen for the serpent's tantalizing use of small truths taken out of context, giving the serpent absolute power over them without even realizing it before it's too late.

They've been told every day that:

Bush was a torturer

Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war simply to enrich his friends

Bush purposely withheld aid to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because he wanted to wipe out poor black people

Conservatives who express opposition to Obama's policies are racist

Opponents of illegal immigration are racist

Opponents of gay marriage are bigots

Opponents of socialized medicine are heartless

Opponents of massive government spending are racist and heartless

Opponents of government takeover of the financial, automotive, and healthcare industries are greedy and selfish

People who are Pro-Life, members of the military, anti-illegal immigration, Christians, pro-second amendment, and Tea Party supporters are dangerous potential terrorists

Every one of these statements is a big lie. It's the path of smaller truths the serpent uses to get to that big lie that hoodwinks the ignorant.

For example, the serpent says that homosexuals are born that way; they live their lives the way they do simply because it's part of who they are as individuals. Therefore, anyone who denies them rights equal to heterosexual couples to marry and receive all the same recognition and benefits of a married couple is a bigot.

Whether or not anyone is born gay is debatable, but even if somehow that's acknowledged to be true, it certainly does not imply that those who oppose granting them special treatment and benefits are bigoted.

Everything else has a similar background, where the serpent used small truths to twist into a huge lie. Unfortunately, the gullible masses have yet to understand that the serpent is not campaigning for their benefit; rather, the serpent's agenda is absolute power over every person.

The serpent is making huge strides toward the ultimate goal, which is removing freedom from all citizens and forcing each and every person to turn away from God, but to worship and obey the serpent.

Would You Invest in This Company?

Unless it's been totally mis-reported, it seems that Chrysler is about to be controlled by a partnership between the UAW and the Federal Government.

Let's think about that for a moment.

The Federal Government, now wholly owned by the Democrat party, exists to gain and build political power for the benefit of an entrenched and growing bureaucracy.

The UAW's mission is to obtain the best possible pay, benefits, and working conditions for its membership while enriching its leadership.

Would you invest in a company who has Barack Obama as the de-facto Chairman of the Board, and the leadership of the UAW constituting the Board of Directors?

My first thought was, what a great opportunity for Ford. Ford refused the federal bailout, which Chrysler and GM have discovered was a Faustian bargain. So it would seem that Ford now has the opportunity to dominate the domestic automobile market, since their American competitors will from here on be run like the US Postal Service.

Of course, the foreign auto makers must also be drooling over the prospect. Toyota and Honda would seem to be guaranteed domination of the auto market for the foreseeable future.

Then again, maybe not. Because the new owners of Chrysler, who presumably are on a path to also control General Motors, won't be happy about the prospect of competing against independent, more efficient, higher quality automobile companies.

So before you run out and invest what's left of your IRA in Ford, consider that the new owners of the other two car companies won't enjoy competing against a private car company. They have the power of a single-party government that will set its sights on the competition, if not determined to shut them down, at least making sure any of their competitive advantages are taxed and regulated away.

Look out Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia, Hyndai, Mazda, and everybody else out there with the gall to take on Obama and the UAW. Your days of competing in the US market selling vehicles consumers want may be numbered.

To Be Honest,

People who routinely use that preamble to their statements drive me a little nuts.

Whenever I hear that, or the many variations on the same theme, I think, "What, you mean you haven't been honest with me before?".

The actual definition of this, and similar phrases like "To tell you the truth", "The truth is", "If I may be honest", or "Let me be straight", goes something like this:

"You may not agree with what I'm about to say, but ..."

Now if people actually used that translation, I could respect that much more.

Then there are variants, like "I won't lie", "I'm not gonna lie", "If you want to know the truth", "The honest truth". These seem to be the same, but I've noticed a subtle difference in their meaning. The translation of this variation is something like this:

"You're probably going to be disappointed or offended by what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway."

This variation is actually somewhat worse than the first, because it's a stronger wording that carries with it a certain insensitivity, condescension, and disregard for the feelings of the receiver. It's akin to telling them that you know what you're going to say might hurt them, but you really don't care.

Now an example of this manner of speech can be found in the words of Jesus throughout the New Testament. Jesus seemed to like the preface that is variously translated as, "Amen, Amen, I say to you", "Verily I say to you", and "Truly I say to you".

Clearly, his intent is somewhat different from the two previous examples. Jesus used this preface as a way to say, "Pay attention! What I'm about to say is important."

Overall, I would prefer people say what they mean and mean what they say. As a rule, I would suggest it is best to say "Listen to this", or "I've got something important to say", when you want to make sure somebody hears and understands you.

Say "I have a different take on that", or "Here's my opinion on that" when you are about to express an opinion that might be controversial. It's OK to disagree respectfully when it comes to deeply held beliefs.

Don't say anything if you're tempted to say something offensive. If you must disappoint someone, rather than the condescending "I'm not gonna lie", simply say something like, "Thanks very much for your invitation, but I will not be able to attend".

People will continue using these phrases, and I'll continue cringing inside when they do. But I wish they could learn from this.

Radical or just Informed?

According to pretty much every poll and "news" report, I now find myself solidly in the "Radical" category. What I always though was radical is now considered mainstream or "moderate". Even the government's own Department of Homeland Security has identified people sharing my beliefs potential domestic terrorists.

Let me try to figure this out. Do these beliefs make me a right-wing radical or just better informed than the mainstream?

I believe the US Constitution is there for a reason, and should not be violated routinely just because politicians and their judicial appointees find it inconvenient.

I believe in the First Amendment, specifically Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. The mainstream now says I'm not permitted to say I'm opposed to Gay Marriage or the words "Jesus Christ" in any context other than swear words. Simply being a Christian, and especially a Catholic, makes me a pariah to the mainstream.

I believe in the Second Amendment. Although I don't actually own a firearm now, I'm seriously considering joining the rush to the gun store to get one before they're banned. (Not to use in terrorist activities, just to protect myself and my family). There has never been a case in history, as far as I know, where a gun jumped up and shot somebody all by itself. There is a long history in places that confiscate guns from the population where violent crime skyrockets because armed criminals know their victims are guaranteed to be unarmed. But the mainstream believes that taking guns away from everybody will end violent crime.

I believe in freedom of conscience. It turns out that physicians will not be forced to perform abortions, but they will be forced to prescribe abortifacient drugs and refer pregnant females to abortionists. Med students, nurses, and pharmacists do not even have the physician's option, and must participate if ordered on pain of loss of their career.

I believe in Equal Protection under the law. A violent crime is abhorrent and deserves swift and harsh judgement regardless of the victim. The mainstream believes that the punishment for such crimes should be more severe only if the offender held specific hatred against the special group in which the victim happened to claim membership.

I believe voting should be fair and just, with only legally authorized citizens eligible. I don't believe the government should give millions or billions to organizations whose primary mission is to help insure a certain party or specific individuals are guaranteed election. The mainstream has no problem with election fraud, as long as they approve of the winner.

I believe that abortion is infanticide. Legal abortion violates the primary right defined by the founders, life. The mainstream thinks it's OK to kill a baby at any time as long as they're not fully emerged from the mother's womb. The President even believes it's OK to kill them even after that.

I believe that foreign policy is best practiced by walking softly and carrying a big stick. Those who choose to be our friends will find us the best friends they could ever hope to have, while those who choose to be our enemies will find us their worst nightmare. But now the standard is apology, weakness, indecisiveness, appeasement, and chopping up the stick.

I believe the government exists to protect us against foreign and domestic enemies, regulate interstate commerce, facilitate international commerce, and facilitate national transportation infrastructure. The constitution is quite specific on the limited powers of the federal government, and the fact that no powers not specified are permitted. But the mainstream thinks it's fine for the federal government to do anything they want without restriction.

I believe the government should be held to the spending standard every household must maintain. They may only spend the money they have. The mainstream has no problem with the government spending every one of us into bankruptcy in the interest of consolidating permanent power.

There are many more beliefs, but the bottom line is this: I believe in freedom, self-determination, personal responsibility, and a non-intrusive government. The mainstream believes the federal government is responsible for taking care of them, cradle to grave. Even when that means none are free to live and work where they want, spend their own money as they see fit, choose their own doctors and medical treatments, and use their property as they please.

But I'm told that is radical. These beliefs make me a right-wing nutcase.

Unless, of course, nobody in the mainstream actually knows what's going on these days.

How did this happen?

Counterintuitive

When times get tough, the government likes to do the exact opposite of rational response.

When times are great, sensible families make sure to put money away against the possibility of hard times. The government spends every dime of their increased tax revenue, even to the point of big deficits they have to finance with debt.

When the economy goes in the tank, families tighten their belts. We cut out all unnecessary spending and focus our limited resources on the basics of housing and food. The government pushes ahead with opportunistic massive spending based on the discredited Keynesian philosophy of the 1030's.

As times get even tougher, families will find a way. We try to find extra money through second jobs, plant gardens to save on food costs, and sell possessions to stay afloat. The government uses the power only they have to raise taxes on those struggling families, exacerbating the downturn by undermining the population's ability to recover.

Recasting the government's behavior in terms of the average American illustrates sheer insanity.

Jack, husband of Jane and father of 3 children, loses his job. He goes home to assess his situation, and it is dire. He hasn't got much in the bank, and between the mortgage, car loans, and credit card balances, he's already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

So he and Jane decide to follow the government's model. Jack hires a contractor to remodel his home and build a new in-ground swimming pool in the backyard. He goes to the local Lexus dealer and purchases a brand new luxury car with 100% financing.

Jane walks through the neighborhood to all the neighbors she knows that still have income. She forces each neighbor to produce their financial statements, and takes about 50% from most of them. She explains to each, at the point of her gun, that since they have more money than she and Jack, it's only fair that they share the wealth.

The neighbors, realizing that half of everything they make is going to Jack and Jane for their remodeled home and swimming pool and Lexus, decide it's not worth all that hard work to only get half of their earnings. So many of them move away to escape their thieving neighbors. Others cut back on their hours or quit their jobs altogether. They plant gardens, no longer visit the doctor but try to manage their own health as best they can, and spend as little as possible on only the most basic needs. Because they realize that if their income falls below a certain level, Jack and Jane will at least leave them alone.

Pretty soon the whole neighborhood is bankrupt. Half the homes are empty, and the other half are in poor condition. At first, only Jack and Jane have the nice home in the neighborhood, but eventually, their source of income from working neighbors dries up. Finally, even Jack and Jane are bankrupt.

Irony

It's interesting to track the irony.

Democrats campaigned on the promise they would be scandal-free, ethical, and transparent. Obama promised to end earmarks.

So, how are they doing?

There's a great and growing list of reports of corruption. Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Murtha, Harman, Biden, and others have all been tied to various corrupt influences to benefit themselves, family, supporters, or close associates. Interestingly, each Democrat's response when they get tied to corruption is not the Republican trend of resigning in disgrace, but fiercely denying everything and blaming some faceless conservative conspiracy.

Is the party powerful enough to squash all investigation and prosecution? So far it would seem so. But they're eager to prosecute all Republicans for the sin of disagreeing with them on policy. It almost seems dangerous to be a former member of the Bush Administration, who all are now at risk of prosecution and imprisonment. The former White House butler and mailroom guy might find themselves locked up before they even realize what happened.

Obama's promise to end earmarks got turned on its ear with the last spending bill - 9,000 of them, give or take. And he didn't even blink.

As far as transparency, it turns out Obama meant transparency only for selected classified documents that might shed a poor light on the Bush administration. Most of his own activities seem to be highly secretive, unless somebody leaks.

Speaking of leaked documents, perhaps the most ironic is the one about Janet Napolitano's plan to implement suveillance on possible domestic terrorists drips with irony.

Remember during the Bush years, when all sorts of left-wing activists, college professors, and fellow travelers were outraged at what they called illegal spying on US Citizens without a warrant? I recall hearing various professors railing on the TV news programs about their absolute certainty that the evil Bush was spying on them solely because of their political views.

Perhaps those same folks figure turnabout is fair play. Despite the fact they had not a shred of evidence for their paranoia, they are universally silent on the new domestic terrorist surveillance. I guess they don't have a problem with warrantless wiretaps when it comes to people who are pro-life, Christian fundamentalists, Catholics and evangelicals, ex-military, NRA members, anti-illegal immigration, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists, or Libertarians.

This time there is actual evidence, although so far nobody's been arrested in any of those groups, at least as far as I know.

Please write to me or visit me when I'm in prison. Wait, that's not the right term; Oh yes, Re-Education Camp.

Think they'll waterboard me?

Why Can't Telecoms Do Customer Service?

I noticed an article some time ago that cited a study where the telecommunications companies hold the distinction as the worst industry for customer service.

My experiences with AT&T over the past 3 weeks would seem to bear this out.

The DSL connection at home was driving us nuts for a few weeks. We'd go online and be OK for awhile, then suddenly the connection would fail. So I'd unplug the modem, let it rest a bit, plug it back in, reboot, and the connection would be working again. But whatever the person using the computer was doing typically was lost, and the process had to be started again.

I found out that a neighbor was having the same trouble, and they paid an AT&T service person for the service call and a new modem. Which seemed a bit unfair to me, having to pay the technician to come out and tell you your modem's bad, then add insult to injury by charging you for that "service" plus an overpriced replacement modem.

I called the service line and reported my problem, and of course, they called back a few hours later and said the line tested fine. That was expected. So I asked them for a new modem.

Too bad, the 1 year warranty just expired last month. So I'd have to purchase the new modem. But if I agreed to keep the service for 1 year, they'd waive the charge and ship me the new one for free. I wasn't terribly pleased with that idea, but under the misguided idea that it would at least solve the problem quickly, I told them to go ahead.

About 10 days later, the new modem still hadn't arrived. By now the internet is completely unusable, as at best the modem will work for a couple of minutes before failing. So I called again, navigating through about the stupidest telephone automation system I've ever encountered until I finally got a human. The pleasant Indian customer service rep asked me all the questions I'd answered about 3 times while navigating through their stupid system, then had trouble understanding my problem.

So when I finally got through to him that a modem was supposed to have been shipped and I still didn't have it, he got around to telling me that I can order one with a credit card. I responded, of course, by pointing out the fact that I'd already been told the new one would be free with a 1 year service commitment.

Well, that offer has ended. Apparently there were way too many people having trouble with those low-quality modems AT&T has been sending out all over the country. I'm guessing somebody found out they were giving thousands of new modems away, and of course before that cuts into profits and hurts some executive's bonus, it was decided to quickly do away with that bad idea.

So I took a deep breath, tried to remain patient, and suggested to the pleasant young Indian that it seemed to me the agreement was already in place for me to receive a replacement. Just because the previous customer service rep failed to properly process the order or the shipping department lost it or whatever other possible reason, should not mean the agreement was void.

Well, that's above his pay grade, so he puts me on hold while he tries to find a supervisor. When he returns, he says he was unable to get his supervisor. But he's a creative fellow, so he said he'd just call shipping and see if they could locate the original order.

I was back on hold for awhile, and was getting tired of holding the handset. So I tried to activate the speaker phone to free up my hands while I waited and accidentally hung up. Arrgh.

I called back, navigated through the stupid telephone maze again, answered all the same questions 3 times, then instead of a customer service rep I somehow got a salesperson. Who promptly tried to sell me an "upgrade" to make my internet faster (only $5 more per month!), tried to sell me a mobile phone, tried to sell me Cable TV, and generally harassed me before finally transferring me to Customer Service.

So after giving my information yet again to the new Customer Service rep, then re-explaining everything a couple of times before he understood, the long and painful ordeal finally ended. He informed me the new modem will be shipped today, and I should receive it Monday.

What would you be willing to wager that a new modem will actually appear at my home sometime Monday?

Yeah, I don't think I'd take that bet either.

Musings on Tea Party

I had considered stopping by Donner park yesterday to check out the Tea Party event there, but ended up working late (Never thought I'd be thrilled to be working late, but boy was I ever!)

So when I did wrap up in the evening, I drove by just to see what was happening. It looked like the crowd was breaking up, with lots of folks walking to their cars. I couldn't tell much about turnout, but noticed cars parked in unusual places, so it seemed there were enough to strain available parking.

I watched some of the Fox News coverage, and noticed several things.

The crowds seemed substantially white, middle-class, and clean-cut. These folks aren't your typical protesters. They aren't into chanting slogans that much. They listen to the speakers and cheer a lot, but if a speaker gets partisan they might boo him.

The events apparently weren't covered by anybody other than Fox News, except maybe for local press and media. There's a clip from CNN with one of their reporters starting to interview a Tea Party attendee then rudely cutting him off and insulting him when he tried to answer her condescending question (Why are you here protesting taxes, when Obama's plan actually gives you a tax cut?)

The local newspaper did a front-page photo but a fairly small and dismissive article. Obviously the reporter wasn't a fan. The photo seemed designed to project a negative image - it showed an angry-looking unattractive woman holding a sign and yelling something.

Either the press doesn't understand or chooses not to understand the driving force behind this movement. They echo the Obama talking points, that everybody except the "rich" are getting a break, so what's the problem?

Then there's the vulgar stuff, that I was very surprised showed up on CNN as well. Imagine if Fox News used a vulgar sexual reference to describe a leftist protest.

The important questions are whether this is a one-time thing, or the start of a movement that will bring government back to reality; and will this gain enough momentum to actually reconfigure the membership of congress?

It would be nice, but the country's still pretty much polarized around 50-50. We shall see next year.

Paying Attention

An unfortunate fact lately is I have time to pay attention to things going on in the world. I think I'd rather be busy working and oblivious, but at least it gives my mind something to do during quiet times.

Some things I noticed:

Obama wanted to name Caroline Kennedy Ambassador to the Vatican. Naturally, the Vatican politely declined. I wonder what the true explanation might be for why The Great and Powerful OB made such a stupid choice?

The first explanation is that he's simply ignorant. With his faux Roman Catholic friends, like the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry, et al, perhaps he thought she was a typical Catholic?.

Maybe he did it on purpose to tweak Pope Benedict. He thought everybody would be outraged that he would reject Princess Caroline. Perhaps it might be true for the atheists and faux Catholics in Obama's inner circle, but actual Catholics are pretty happy the Vatican held firmly to their faith and principles.

Thinking a bit further on the subject, it seems that Obama will have a very difficult time with this appointment. Because I'm not sure he even knows anybody that would be acceptable to the Vatican. He certainly doesn't seem to understand or respect anybody who actually practices their faith.

Another thing I noticed was related to the successful rescue of the captain from the Somali pirates. Not the rescue itself, which is actually a rare example of Obama doing the right thing.

What I noticed are three stories. The first was the unseemly media blitz from the White House that commenced immediately after the captain was rescued by Navy Seals. Apparently, White House staffers called all their media buddies to crow that it was all Obama. He ordered it, coordinated it, perhaps even micro-managed the operation from the White House, according to his in-house spin machine.

They have no class.

The second story I noticed was that Obama only gave approval for force to be used in the rescue shortly before it took place. The story seemed to suggest that he was hesitant and indecisive, and only gave the Navy a green light to act if the captain's life was in imminent danger. That is a concern for future and probably much more serious terrorist crises that will certainly present themselves.

The third story is about the recent photo op for Obama when he visited the troops in Iraq. I saw that picture, which showed a crowd of adoring soldiers fawning over The Great and Powerful OB, shooting pictures and getting autographs. I was a bit surprised when I saw that photo, because I had always held the general impression that the military wasn't particularly enamored of the Great & Powerful Wizard.

So today I heard the explanation. An advance team carefully screened the soldiers to make sure only strong Obama supporters got in when he made his visit. Then they gave them cameras to shoot their pictures, and photos to get autographed.

The visit was staged for purely propaganda purposes. I seem to recall that the Soviets used to do that sort of thing. Other totalitarian regimes do the same around the globe. Now the Great and Powerful OB is getting in on the game.

By the way, the elimination of the conscience rule for healthcare professionals is done. I'm waiting to see what happens when the first doctor or pharmacist refuses to participate in an abortion.

Is anybody else paying attention?

How Fair are Elections?

The rulings in the Minnesota case of the Senate election contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken would appear to grant the seat to Franken. I've read as much as I can find on the interesting race, recount, and subsequent legal challenge. My conclusion is that Franken will get the seat, not because he polled more Minnesota votes, but because he had a more aggressive legal team and stronger Democratic machine behind him.

The best analysis of the whole controversial election can be found at powerlineblog.com. I'll try to summarize the essential story on my own.

The election ended with Coleman ahead by only a few hundred votes. The recount required by statute was completed by each county election board, with an aggressive and well-funded team of Franken lawyers looking over their shoulders. Apparently, Coleman's camp was much less aggressive, and somehow the recount tipped the scales to a razor-thin margin for Franken.

Coleman's court contest of the election focused on the fact that Democrat dominated counties deviated from Minnesota state law in counting ballots, while Republican dominated counties held to the letter of the law. In other words, if an absentee ballot was not filled out, signed, and filed per Minnesota election law, the Democrat electors often counted it anyway, while Republicans did not.

Stories have surfaces throughout the process of precincts turning in more votes than they had registered voters; a couple hundred ballots suddenly turned up in a Democrat elector's trunk a couple of days after the election and were counted, even though 100% of those ballots happened to be marked for Franken; and another hundred-some votes were run through the machine twice at a Democrat precinct.

The election court ruled that about 400 previously rejected ballots were to be counted, but I haven't found the specific reasons why they were rejected or why they now must be counted. Those ballots apparently added another 100 votes net for Franken.

So Coleman is appealing to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the case could eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court. Coleman's argument is that the process violated Equal Protection under the Law, because Democrat precincts were allowed to count ballots technically in violation of election law while Republican precincts followed the letter of the law. Coleman's case says that the local election boards were allowed to use their own judgement, and the lack of uniform standards applied to which ballots were counted and which were not amounts to an unfair application of the law which clearly favored the Democrat candidate.

There is no provision in Minnesota law for remedies to this situation. There also is no way to review all of those votes that have already been counted to throw out those that were illegally cast. So the court's ruling decided that since the only legal remedy is not available, there is no remedy but to seat Franken on the basis of the 350 or so vote differential he currently holds. The problem with Coleman's suggested remedy, which is to include 4,000 rejected ballots to make up for the fact that the Democrat precincts counted some significant but unknown number of ballots with the same flaws, is that the remedy would actually cause Minnesota's laws to be broken in order to count them.

Of course, there's the whole other issue in Minnesota of voting fraud. Everyone has by now heard of Obama's ACORN machine's vote fraud activities, which were just as prevalent in Minnesota as anywhere. Minnesota hasn't implemented Indiana's solution to voting fraud, simply requiring voters to show a valid identification when they appear at the polls.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of college students from Wisconsin fraudulently registering and voting, along with illegal immigrants, convicted felons, dead people, fictional characters, and other well-publicized tricks so favored by that party.

But again, there is no law on the books in Minnesota that permits or even makes possible a review of fraudulently cast votes. If somebody showed up at the polls and voted, or submitted an absentee ballot filled out properly, whether or not the voter was eligible matters not.

So can it be said that Franken won fairly? I don't think so.

Then there's the prosecutorial misconduct discovery against Ted Stevens in Alaska. His charges were dropped and his conviction overturned, and the prosecutors in that case may be prosecuted themselves. The FBI agent who uncovered this misconduct may have uncovered a broad Democrat conspiracy that caused the overzealous prosecution with the goal of gaining the magical filibuster-proof majority for the party.

And the New York race that is apparently still to close to call is another to be monitored to see whether we actually have free and fair elections in this country. Could it be that we've already become like China, Cuba, or the old Soviet Union, where elections are predestined by the ruling party?

Possibly.

I seem to have started something

So the editorial has taken a life of its own. This Sunday there was a response, and today there were two more.

The guy who wrote the original letter that elicited my response sent in a rebuttal. Well, sort of. Interestingly, he seemed to capitulate from his original assertion that the old free market system is dead (hallelujah!). I got a chuckle because his attempt at rebuttal was pretty feeble.

He backpedaled and tried to say he wasn't suggesting socialism, just "reasonable" regulation. Then he reverted back to his straw man, trying to suggest that those free marketeers he was railing against wanted to do away with all government oversight. His examples, such as social security, unemployment insurance and antitrust laws, were laughable. Nobody I've heard on the capitalist right has ever seriously suggested anything more than reform of those programs. Not to mention that he completely missed my comment about lack of enforcement of antitrust law at the root of these institutions deemed "too big to fail".

I guess I won the argument without even trying very hard. But since when is it my job to put forward such arguments? Don't we have so-called "leaders" who are supposed to do that? I'm just a lowly software consultant who lives in the boonies.

Unfortunately, the other two guys writing on the topic were not easy to decipher. I'm pretty sure both of them were generally supportive of my thesis, but they probably should stick to their day jobs.

I don't think it necessary to write in again, at least not on that topic.

Solving Terrorism

When it comes to solving problems, I've learned that the first rule is to understand and deal with the root cause. Unfortunately, most people can't solve big problems because they try to fix the symptoms, missing or ignoring the underlying disease.

When considering the problem of Muslim terrorism, we see the Great and Powerful OB in full "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" mode. Not only is he trying to deny the very existence of Muslim terrorism, he pretends to ignore the elephant in the room. That elephant being the fact that the root of Muslim terrorism is the very existence of the State of Israel.

Hamas used the naive institution of "Democracy" in the Palestinian territories to gain political power. Hamas has made no attempt to hide its strong commitment to eradicate Israel and kill every non-Muslim in the region.

The simple conclusion is that the terrorists dedicated to that cause, supported by oil-rich Iran, Syria, and a quiet Saudi Arabia, will never accept any negotiated peace. They've promised their followers to never participate in the two state solution pushed by Clinton and Bush, and presumably supported by the Great and Powerful OB.

So what's the answer?

There's only one practical solution (Unless you consider running away and hiding from the problem a solution). An enforced peace. Pax Americana, if you will.

Get a coalition of allies to partner with the United States to force peace in the region. Here's how it works:

Freeze the borders where they are today. Palestinians can have a semi-autonomous state within the borders of the current Palestinian Territories. They can elect their own civil government, assess taxes, and handle the day-to-day administration of their state. Israel's borders are permanently set; no more negotiations or pressure on Israel to give more land for peace (like it's ever worked anyway).

Jerusalem belongs to neither state. The holy city belongs to the world. Citizens of Jerusalem may hold dual citizenship in Jerusalem and their country of origin. It will be extremely difficult for someone not already living and working in Jerusalem today to become a citizen. The US-built coalition commits to proving security in Jerusalem for 20 years, renewable if necessary at that time. Any Jerusalem citizen convicted of a violent crime faces eviction and loss of citizenship, as well as a lifetime ban from ever entering the city again.

The coalition will also provide a substantial number of troops to secure and protect each state. The troops will bring a martial law to the Israel-Palestinian border areas, cracking down on all cross-border violence. The martial law will last until the violence stops, then a gradual draw-down and handover of security to the respective governments will take place.

Any trouble-making by Iran will be dealt with harshly by the coalition. The message to Iran is this: "Stop supporting terrorism, do not deploy nuclear weapons, and we'll leave you alone. Continue those destructive actions and we'll crush you."

It might sound harsh, but it's true. The beauty of this idea is that it can be delivered to the parties as a sort of ultimatum: Either get together and negotiate your own peace deal, or peace will be imposed on you as of a date certain.

The belief in a diplomatic solution to this problem is pure fantasy.

Worse than I Thought

I stumbled across this article today. Even though I knew there was a problem, I didn't actually understand the scope until seeing these statistics.

The unhappy truth is that Catholics are ignorant about their own faith. My experience through just casual conversations with fellow parishioners seems to confirm this fact. The survey is particularly shocking in the number of Catholics who have no problem with abortion, divorce, and adultery.

As a convert from the Brethren Church, the most striking difference I've noted, with some disappointment, is the fact that Roman Catholics focus all of their faith formation on the children. Adults, for the most part, either never actually learned anything in their childhood catechism, or have forgotten.

Although my childhood Protestant church certainly has plenty of flaws, one thing I think they understand well is that study of the faith is a lifelong endeavour. Sunday School, Bible Study, various men's and women's service groups, and unending pitch-in dinners build better understanding of the faith as well as strong connections between the congregants.

It's disappointing to see that young adults leave the church behind. There are many underlying reasons, I think:

Too few overworked priests, among whom too many choose to ignore Catholic values and teaching.

A public education system that is committed to driving faith and religion out of every child.

Popular Culture that hammers a secular "anything goes" message every hour of every day.

Political Correctness, which demands no one "judge" another's chosen behavior and "lifestyle choices".

The culture's successful effort to confuse people on the difference between tolerance and permissiveness.

The popular idea that the Church is a staid, stuffy, rules-obsessed institution full of phonies.

I think that a positive sign is in the young priests who are gradually working their way into the parishes. Many of these energetic young men have embraced the Church's foundational tenets and appreciate its history. Perhaps they are the best hope of revitalizing the Church in these difficult times.

Still Unsure

The letter got published yesterday (Sunday, 3/29), somewhat surprisingly in its entirety and as the only letter to the editor appearing in that edition.

I was somewhat surprised to get phone calls and messages from people who read it and wanted to express their appreciation. Fortunately there were no calls expressing the opposite sentiment.

Whether or not it was a good idea I still am not sure. But I don't expect to attract much attention. Sticking my neck out still might invite the axe. Whether or not I submit more letters in the future remains to be seen.

Sticking My Neck Out

I had to respond to a letter to the editor in today's newspaper (Columbus Republic), although now that I have, I'm wondering whether it was a good idea.

Oh well, too late now. Here's what might be showing up in the paper in the next few days.

To: editor@therepublic.com
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:45:54 AM
Subject: Freedom

Dear Editor:

Tom Lane's straw man case about the uncaring and unfeeling free market invites a thoughtful response.

Yes, the idea of free markets has no regard for persons. Free markets choose winners based on qualities like ingenuity, productivity, and creativity. Efficient free markets led to an unprecedented run of prosperity for America over the last 25 years or so.

Was it the free market capitalist system that led to the suffering we are all experiencing with today's economic meltdown?

No.

Irresponsible behavior by companies in a free market rightly leads to their failure, after which they are replaced by more responsible and better-run companies. In the case of the current economic crisis, the systemic failures can be laid at the feet of government.

The blame rests with both political parties, who actively encouraged financial firms to over-leverage themselves with extremely risky investments, while conveniently forgetting about existing antitrust law that should have guaranteed there were no American companies "too big to fail". Ironically, the very same congressional players most responsible for creating these conditions remain in charge of the "recovery".

Tom does not propose an alternative solution to the free market capitalist system, so I must assume he supports the socialist alternative, which the ruling party is quick-marching us to as I write this letter.

America was founded on the fundamental principle of freedom. The inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness remain the heart and soul of what has been the most successful and prosperous nation in world history.

Tom's leaders have demonstrated their disdain for these principles. Radical changes either already passed into law or working their way through our one-party ruling class guarantee a laundry list of abrogations to these founding principles.

Our freedoms are being rapidly replaced with a paternalistic government that will dictate how much money we can earn, whom we must hire and may fire, which medical treatments and procedures we are permitted and which are dictated to be performed and funded without regard to moral objection, what we may eat or drink, what sort of car we may drive, what property we may own and how we may use that property, how much of our accumulated wealth may be passed to our heirs, and perhaps even what we are permitted to think, believe, and say in public.

Mr. Lane's straw man of an unfettered capitalism forming the root cause of today's economic ills seems to be covering up the fact that the cure is much worse than the disease. His ideological alternative will confiscate from the productive and give to the non-productive, skimming a healthy amount off the top for the new ruling class of government apparatchiks.

My humble suggestion for a better way out of our economic mess is, rather than "bail out" the irresponsible players and sell our country to the Chinese to finance opportunistic national transformation into a leftist utopia, perhaps we should rely on ourselves and each other. How can a government that is proven corrupt and more adept at creating problems than solving them suddenly be trusted to manage some of our largest and most important industries, let alone each of our individual lives?

Let the bad players in the market fail, and sell them off piece by piece to more responsible companies instead of nationalizing them under government-appointed political operatives. Encourage invention and innovation by entrepreneurs to provide plentiful, cheap, clean energy, instead of nationalizing the energy industry and imposing painfully high consumer costs under the dishonest "cap and trade" policy. Fix the underlying problems that led to the high cost of healthcare to make it accessible and affordable for everyone, rather than simply adding cost and harming access by nationalizing that entire industry.

Tom and his half of the country live in an alternate universe, where it seems emotion rules and common sense is unwelcome.

Thank you,

Our 5 Year Old Leader

Little Barry got caught by his mother hiding in his room and stuffing cookies in his mouth from the cookie jar he managed to pilfer from the kitchen.

"But Mom!", Barry wailed, "Last week I saw Georgie take a cookie!".

Is 2010 Too Late?

Our only hope to halt the Obama transformation of America into Communism is to purge congress of his minions in 2010. But even that may be too late.

I don't make the Communist charge lightly. I've hesitated to do so until the preponderance of the evidence has proven the case. Obama's agenda clearly intends to nationalize commerce, build a welfare state, drive Christianity underground, and persecute political opponents.

After the election, I decided to wait awhile and see whether Obama was the extreme leftist ideologue I feared or a more moderate leader. I'm somewhat surprised that he's even worse than I ever expected. It's actually very difficult for me to find a single initiative he is pushing I can agree with, or even have no serious objection to.

He's the antithesis of everything I believe.

He's not only pro choice, but on the extreme fringe. He supports partial-birth abortion and abortion on demand without parental notification for minors, without waiting periods, without counseling, basically without restriction of any sort. As if that's not bad enough, he has proposed to force doctors and hospitals to perform abortions on demand, even if they have a personal moral objection.

He's incompetent and dangerous on foreign policy. Closing Gitmo without any plan for the prisoners held there, all appearances are that he will turn those terrorists loose in the United States. In only a couple of months, he's managed to insult our allies and embolden our enemies. We're becoming frighteningly vulnerable to new terror attacks in our own country, while he gives millions to Hamas and seems unconcerned about nuclear missiles in Iran and North Korea.

He is even more determined than Bush was to throw open the borders. There's a war happening in Mexico and spilling across our southern border, but he has no interest in protecting us from it. He can't wait to legalize millions of illegal immigrants so he can fold them into his new welfare state and add their votes to keep him in office.

He gutted the welfare-to-work policies that have been so successful to return us to the bad old days of generations eking out a living on the government dole.

He is looking forward to stacking the Supreme Court with leftist judges that will ignore the constitution to codify any parts of his agenda that he can't accomplish legislatively. Likely first on the docket will be the discovery of a new "right" to gay marriage. Then vast expansion of eminent domain powers as the government takes private property from citizens. The rulings will continue until the country is fully communist and individual freedoms are gone.

He found out that the "fairness doctrine" was highly unpopular, so he changed tactics to something called "localization" of radio station management. What that means is local boards will be appointed (by his party) to decide what subject matter is appropriate for the radio airwaves. All designed, of course, to get those people who oppose him, like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., off the air.

He is building local gestapo organizations under Homeland Security to "gather local intelligence on possible domestic terrorists". The definition of "domestic terrorists"? "Militia members", pro-life activists, Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, constitutionalists, evangelicals, etc. (Frightened yet?)

He is bankrupting the country. It can't be that he is ignorant of that fact, so the only logical conclusion is that his goal is to destroy the economy so he can build his new socialist utopia from the ashes.

May God have mercy on us all.

Twisted Logic, Twisted Morality

The article this morning was written by PBS' Bonnie Erbe, amplifying the outrage of the elitists against Pope Benedict's suggestion that free condoms aren't the solution to the African AIDS epidemic.

Bonnie piled on the Pope with charges that he was hopelessly ignorant for suggesting that responsible monogamy is the most effective and moral strategy for guaranteeing protection from the terrible virus.

She railed that African women are sold against their will into marriages with older men who have been sexually promiscuous and already infected. Those men refuse to use any protection against the disease, thus their young brides are sentenced to death when sold into these arranged slavish marriages.

Um, Bonnie, did you happen to notice that in your argument you actually confirmed the papal point that condoms aren't the answer? In your twisted logic defending the UN policy of distributing free condoms to Africans, you actually confirmed that it doesn't work; ahem, men refuse to use them.

It seems that your anger toward the pontiff may be based more on your distaste for Catholicism than any reasoned argument about the topic of AIDS prevention.

Studies have come up with about an 80% effectiveness rate in preventing STD's for those using condoms. Monogamy is 100% effective.

What's wrong with telling the truth, Bonnie? Given the facts and making a purely logical decision, would you feel safer practicing the 80% or the 100% prevention strategy? Would you knowingly have sex with someone who has AIDS if there's a 20% chance of infection, or would you take a pass?

Let's assume for argument's sake that your depiction of women enslavement to infected men is true. It's certainly tragic, if true. How exactly does it invalidate Pope Benedict's statement?

On another topic, what's the best way to stop an epidemic? Removing the infected from the general population can be pretty effective. Nobody really wants to do that, so the next best approach is to tell everyone to stop exchanging body fluids with people that may be infected.

I don't care whether you're approaching this topic from a religious perspective or not. The 100% effective strategy isn't that hard to comprehend. Why not educate everyone about it?

Pinochio

How fitting is the Pinochio story as an analogy for our own current dilemmas.

Pinochio and lots of other children were enticed to this place called Pleasure Island, where they could do whatever they wanted. Pleasure Island promised to fulfill all of their desires, while requiring no personal responsibility or adult supervision.

Of course, it all turned into a mirage, as Pinochio and his other misguided friends' excesses at Pleasure Island placed them into a stupor. The evil people who created Pleasure Island then were able to easily turn them into asses and enslave them.

Sound familiar? I suppose you might have a good guess at who runs America's Pleasure Island right now.

On another topic, I've been following the case of the election contest in Minnesota between Coleman and Franken. The vote counts are so close and the issues so complex that I'm convinced the only fair resolution is a runoff election.

Which of course is why there will not be a runoff election.

Ultimately the courts are going to decide the winner in this one. That's a shame.

It seems to me that all States should provide for a runoff in any election that has more than 2 candidates and the vote differential between the top 2 is less than, say, half a percent.

Apparently the Franken side is dead-set against a runoff, because they'd likely lose. I guess part of the reason it was so close, according to my friends in Minnesota, is that a third-party candidate siphoned off a significant number of what would otherwise have been Coleman votes. There seems to be a pretty major beef among Minnesotans toward Coleman, but I haven't got a clear understanding of the reasons. It must be pretty serious if it resulted in such a close contest with somebody as ridiculously unfit, amoral and corrupt as Stuart Smalley.

Perfect Storm Swamped Economy

60 Minutes isn't a program I've tuned into for quite some time, but I couldn't miss their story with Ben Bernanke. It was a fascinating story, where Bernanke was quite circumspect about the root causes of the worldwide crisis but pretty open about his belief in what solutions are best.

The chairman kept studiously away from political statements, but did point out that massive amounts of investment cash over the last dozen years or so drove the investment companies to find homes for that cash. Places like China and the oil-rich middle east were looking for safe places to invest their money with good return on investment.

My own expansion on that, based on extrapolation of other sources of information, is that these investment companies were highly motivated to find a home for all this investment cash. That motivation is what led to the bubble that burst last year.

When mortgage brokers have almost unlimited sources of cheap money to lend, they go looking for people to lend it to. The creation of the mortgage-backed securities market allowed them to package the risky mortgages with less risky mortgages and sell them to investment firms that really didn't know what they were buying.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were heavily invested in the bloated mortgage market, moving beyond their congressional mandate to insure every mortgage they could find. With the approval and encouragement of their congressional supporters, and to the extremely lucrative benefit of the Democrat operative CEO's who became very rich in bonuses.

So when the variable-rate subprime mortages converted from the teaser rates to the much higher market rates, the borrowers began to default in droves. Oil prices spiked due to a combination of prices bid up with concern over expansion of the Iraq war, OPEC production reductions, and American politicians shutting down domestic oil exploration and production.

The energy prices drove many marginal borrowers over the edge. Suddenly many areas of the country saw real estate values plunge, as underwater homeowners defaulted. Investors became very conservative, holding onto what cash they had left and abandoning the real estate and stock markets en masse. The stock market crashed, and an estimated one-third of American wealth has vanished.

The government has spent 2 trillion dollars it doesn't have, partially to keep the financial system afloat, which Bernanke believes has averted a second Great Depression. The new President is jumping on the opportunity ("we can't let a good crisis go to waste") to implement his vision of "change", which is taking the final steps away from a free and open society into a cradle-to-grave European-style socialist society.

The giant ship of the economy now seems to be slowly turning around, but will do so ever so slowly. Unfortunately, it is unlikely return to the prosperity of the 90's and 2000's anytime in the next decade. Perhaps never, as wealth redistribution in the last steps into socialism will ensure all will have to adjust to a new lower standard of living.

Alternatives

As the leftist government continues their quest to make the most of this good crisis, to paraphrase the White House Chief of Staff, the most common charge made against the weak opposition posed by the right is that they aren't offering substantive alternatives.

Although I'd have to agree that there is no visible leadership or coherent message coming from the Republican Party, I tend to think the charge is somewhat unfair; Republicans have been offering alternatives, but have been ignored by the media perhaps because the talking heads prefer to help the left make their point.

So if I were crafting public policy in this disastrous time, what would be my priorities?

In the short term, my priorities would be to turn around the economy. Here are the basics of my own economic recovery plan:

Temporary tax breaks for companies that hire Citizen employees. Tax increases for companies that hire foreign workers during the same time period.

A reduction in the Corporate Tax Rate, from today's 35% to maybe 15%.

A reduction in the Capital Gains Tax Rate.

Make sure the funds of depositors are insured, but stop bailing out financial institutions that made bad business decisions.

Allowing everyone to temporarily deduct their investment losses, at least equal to the amount of interest and dividend income for 2009.

Begin enforcement of Anti-Trust laws.

Step up the sale of leases for oil and natural gas development, making sure profits from the oil and gas production are shared.

Freezing all salaries for Federal employees for 2 years. Eliminating non-essential government programs. Forcing all Federal programs to prove they are meeting their express goals within 2 years or be closed. Freezing growth in all other government agencies budgets, unless growth is required for national security.

Long-term priorities:

Trade policies must be focused on free and fair trade. The US market will be open to the extent that the trading partner's market is open. A trade court will be established where US businesses can file complaints about unfair practices by foreign competitors; tariffs for imports from those competitors will be implemented for those cases proven by civil standards.

Welfare will be transformed away from today's transfer payments program to a non-cash assistance program. People who need food will be given food; if they need a place to stay, they can get a temporary place to stay; if they need a job, they will get a job with the government if a private job can't be found; if they need healthcare, they will get temporary insurance. A system designed to keep people dependent will be transformed into a system designed to help people become self-sufficient.

Healthcare will be transformed into a pay-for-service model and away from today's third-party payer system. Insurance for "major medical" must be accessible for everyone, so hospitalization and rehabilitation are covered when needed. Pay-for-Service for all routine medical care and prescription drugs will lower costs for all.

The military will remain the best and strongest and most technologically advanced in the world, but the mission will gradually change to a focus on defense of our own country. Foreign military interventions will be, by policy, limited to those cases where America's own security is directly threatened.

Illegal immigrants will be given 2 years to correct their status or face deportation. Anyone in the country illegally must return to their home country and apply for a "Green Card". The application for the permit requires the applicant present a notarized statement from the employer that will employ them, pass an English proficiency exam, and have committed no felonies. After the 2 year grace period, all employers will be forced to verify their employees' qualifications or face serious fines and/or prosecution for knowingly employing illegals. Illegal immigrants found in the country after that time, whether in routine traffic stops, arrests, or other means, will be deported to their home country within 48 hours.

Education will be transformed, with emphasis on strategies that work and a compensation system that rewards the best teachers. The best proven programs able to turn around at-risk students will be implemented wherever possible. However, the federal government will serve an advisory role only; each state has total control over their own educational systems and programs.

The First Amendment will once again reign supreme. No more persecution of people for their expression of religion or political opinion.

Notice my policies can't really be portrayed as either Democrat or Republican. I'm not a left-wing socialist like most Democrats, nor am I a free-trader at all costs like many Republicans. I believe in freedom and fairness. Fairness isn't taking wealth away from some citizens to give to others, nor is it giving unfettered government support and preference to big business.

The only way any of this stuff can happen is by a combination of a great awakening of the public to the truth of how business is done in Washington by both parties, and the election of people to national offices that put the country over their own desire for personal power.

You Sure We're Talking About the USA?

The concluding paragraph from John Hinderaker at Powerlineblog.com is chilling. He's talking about the ongoing election contest in Minnesota between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. And we thought such things couldn't happen in the United States, but only in third-world totalitarian regimes? I suppose not.

One more thing: Coleman didn't make this point, but Franken's lead is but a fraction of the number of votes that were illegally cast by illegal aliens, students from Wisconsin, and so on. If only qualified voters had been allowed to cast ballots, Coleman would have won by a margin far greater than Franken's razor-thin 225-vote lead. If Franken ultimately becomes a United States Senator, he will owe his seat to the Democratic Party's deliberate strategy, here in Minnesota as around the country, of facilitating voter fraud by frustrating all efforts to require voter identification.

Being Consistent

Ever notice the mind-boggling inconsistencies by our elites?

The old one that continues to be true, "Save the Whales. Kill the babies."

Some that I'm noticing:

Ban tobacco, legalize pot.

Rehabilitate and release rapists and murderers. Unless it was a "Hate Crime", then go ahead and throw the book at them.

Abortion pills are a right. Guns must be banned.

Religion is banned from all schools. Marxism is an important part of the curriculum.

Tolerance and diversity are to be celebrated. Except in the case of white Christians.

Everyone must be forced to reduce their "carbon footprint". Except for Al Gore, who has the companies that get the exclusive government franchise to enforce energy restrictions on everyone else.

Science rules. Except when it differs from our most firmly held beliefs.

Free healthcare is a right. But we get to decide what healthcare you can or can't have.

We are the World. Of course, we're just talking about China or France.

Raise taxes on the evil rich. Um, unless they're one of Us, Hollywood or other celebrities, or big donors to Us.

Equal Rights is our top priority. Except for white or asian hetero males.

The Age of Celebrity Worship

Apparently we're such a celebrity obsessed society that we can't tell the difference between celebrities and statesmen.

Obama is the Celebrity-in-Chief. He was elected largely on his looks, charisma, and speaking ability (albeit only with a teleprompter). Washington is awash in celebrities for the American people to gawk at and gush over. White house performances by celebrity musicians like Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind & Fire seem to be developing into a regular occurrence.

Got a problem with Obama and his minions spending the country into bankruptcy? Stop being a wet blanket; gee, isn't Michelle's fashion sense just awesome?!

Brad and Angelina hit town, and everyone's ga-ga. I wonder what area of expertise they bring to congressional hearings? Whatever they say must be amazing and inspiring, right?

So I'm seeing Springsteen, Bono, Daryl Hannah, George Clooney, Robbins & Sarandon, and on and on, saying whatever stupid things might be on their minds and being hailed as prophets.

The country is now in the hands of people who make their livings trying to look good and pretending to be somebody else. But somehow this makes them smarter than the rest of us. I keep wondering whether there's fine print in the new tax laws that exempts them from that rich class of people who deserve to have their wealth taken away?

I'm sorry to suggest this, but it seems our citizens are now getting what they deserve. It's certainly what they asked for, whether they realized it at the time or not.

Socialism

Part of the argument being put forward against Obama's agenda centers around the undeniable fact that his policies are overwhelmingly Socialist in nature.

But America's been Socialist for a long time, with much of it established under the Father of American Socialism, FDR. The Great Depression opened the door for Roosevelt to implement federal socialism that has expanded over the generations into the entrenched socialist programs we take for granted today.

Social Security was sold as a national retirement savings and disability insurance plan. It's nothing of the sort, but merely a Ponzi scheme taking money from working families to give to retirees. Perhaps it served as the inspiration for Bernie Madoff.

How many of us rely on the government for at least part of our livelihood? Let me see if I can tick off some socialist programs without looking them up.

Seniors get a pension from Social Security.
Minor children receive benefits from Social Security if a parent died.
Sick or disabled people receive benefits from Social Security.
HUD gives housing assistance, either partial or full rent payments.
Food Stamps give groceries to families.
Medicare gives healthcare, and now prescription drugs, to people over 65.
Medicaid gives healthcare, drugs, and even taxi rides to the doctor for those who earn less than the threshold.
SCHIP gives healthcare to nearly all children not otherwise covered by employer plans.
State health insurance plans subsidize health insurance for people who can't buy insurance on the market as individuals and aren't covered by a corporate plan.
Farmers get subsidies for growing or not growing certain crops.
Companies get subsidies to help them sell their products outside the US.
Pro Sports teams get stadiums and team facilities built to keep them from leaving their city for another willing to build them a nicer stadium or better facilities.
Utilities are paid for people who can't afford them.
College Education is subsidized for many, mostly based on "need".
Roads, bridges, sewer systems, and utilities are provided to incent business to locate and/or stay in a community.

I've only scratched the surface. Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of providing any of these benefits for people. There are other, better, less costly ways to solve problems without citizens becoming wholly owned and controlled by the government.

Sure, Obama's put the pedal to the metal to implement deeply socialist and redistributionist policies. But if you think we're not already a socialist country, you must live in a cave somewhere.

Interesting Stuff

While traveling this week, I hit the 'Scan' button on the radio in my rental car, looking for something interesting. I found a few things.

Cruising down the highway, I stumbled on some guy named Mike Malloy, who within the first 5 seconds was unquestionably identified as an Air America type. I thought I'd listen for a bit to see how he spun the Obama agenda.

He had no interest in the Obama agenda. Actually, he didn't have anything at all to say about current events. He was obsessing with Bush. Angry that Pelosi didn't move impeachment forward before Bush left office, he was declaring his deepest hope that Bush and Cheney might still get locked up for their "crimes". He actually believes John Conyers' quest to hold hearings on the Bush administration will somehow satisfy his apparent one and only wish, the persecution and prosecution of the object of his most intense hatred.

Then I found it interesting to hear later in a snippet from another channel that the same Mike Malloy was having fun at the expense of Bobby Jindal. His sidekick was doing a caricature impression of Jindal, portraying him as an Indian phone center worker. The segment was repeated, and it was pretty shocking. More evidence of the double standard. Get a Limbaugh or Hannity doing this sort of racist stuff (which I've never heard them or anybody else on the right do, unless you think Imus is a right-winger), and everyone knows what would happen.

A second interesting piece was an interview with noted atheist Christopher Hitchens. He was attempting to make the case that religion in general, and Christianity specifically, is the root of all evil in the world. He supports the idea that government needs to drive religion from society.

What I found most interesting was that Hitchens' animus against Christians is tied to his observations of the bad behavior of some who profess to be members of the faith. That's something I have noticed in every atheist argument I've ever heard. At the root of their denial of even a possibility of the existence of God is the fact that some people who claim to be believers do evil.

Hitchens and others like him must have had a very bad experience in life, most likely in childhood, where a Christian adult mistreated them. It saddens me to find so many alienated from the Church because someone in that Church offended or mistreated them. It isn't fair to the true nature of the faith.

I would like to have asked Hitchens a few questions, like:

If there is no God, then who gets to define what's good and what's evil? You? Me? The Government?

Putting aside the evil done by people in the name of God, what is it about the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as documented in the four Gospels, do you find offensive?

By focusing on those who corrupt the Church for their own gain, you are ignoring the massive good done by Christians. Is there any group of people in the history of the world who have fed, clothed, educated, healed, and helped more people in need than Christians?

The modern examples of what happens to people in officially atheist countries clearly show millions murdered, imprisoned, and persecuted simply because they refuse to give up their faith. How can you suggest that these regimes are more desirable than the American nation that was founded on Christian principles and religious freedom?

When you die, consider that you come face to face with God and must come to grips with the fact you've willfully rejected Him? What would you say in your defense?

Hitchens doesn't know who I am, and would certainly not appreciate it, but I'm going to pray for him anyway.

Critical Thinking

In my continuing quest to influence somebody to use their brain just a bit, here are some basic questions to consider.

Is it better to have the government take money away from other people so you can have "free" medical care, which will include a government bureaucrat deciding what treatments and medications you may and may not have; or is it better to find ways to make medical care more affordable and available for everyone with minimal government meddling?

Whose rights are more important - those of homosexuals who want to get their "marriages" recognized and elevated to equal status with traditional marriage, or those of churches, clergy, and individuals of faith to avoid the force of government dictating for whom they may provide the marriage sacrament or employ as clergy, staff, or school teachers?

Would you prefer winners and losers in society to be chosen by the marketplace based on productivity, creativity, and industriousness, or chosen by the government based on race, sex or sexual orientation, and political affiliation?

Should taxes be taken by force of government from people to pay for programs they find morally represhensible?

Should individual health professionals be forced under threat of government sanctions to perform procedures or prescribe drugs they find morally reprehensible?

Should parents be denied the ability to raise their children according to their religious beliefs if those beliefs are in conflict with the government's philosophy? Does the government have the right to force children into government-run schools to insure they are indoctrinated into such philosophies?

Understanding that the big things in churches and charities get done because of generous contributions from the wealthiest among us, is it a good idea to remove all tax deductions for charitable contributions from those individuals?

Should the government give billions of taxpayer funds to organizations created for the express purpose of placing and keeping a single political party in power?

Is it more racist to strive for a truly color-blind society where anyone can succeed based on their individual merit and character, or to tell certain races that since society is somehow oppressing them, that they need to be jumped artificially to the top of the list for admission to medical or law school, given hiring preferences based on their skin color, and have the right to a government handout confiscated from working people?

If you think Global Warming is real and man-made, would it give you pause to find out that the "solutions" being implemented are designed to entrench socialist government control over your own use of energy, while enriching the proponents of these new policies (i.e. Al Gore) beyond your wildest imagination?

Does the government have the right to fund and encourage a counselor at your daughter's middle or high school to take her to an abortion clinic to vacuum out her developing fetus without your own knowledge or consent?

Is it OK to kill an otherwise viable child by collapsing its skull just before delivery simply because the mother decided she didn't want to be a parent? Is this a private matter between the mother and her abortion doctor, or first-degree homicide?

If you can't tell which political ideology I'm talking about in this post, perhaps you should try educating yourself. If you recognize the political party policies I've talked about above and don't believe I've represented their policies accurately, perhaps you need to educate yourself. If you recognize the political policies and still agree with them, please stay away, you're scaring me.